<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is development an answer for city churches?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://boyinthebands.com/archives/is-development-an-answer-for-city-churches/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://boyinthebands.com/archives/is-development-an-answer-for-city-churches/</link>
	<description>Scott Wells on the practice of Christian faith</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:10:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Derek</title>
		<link>http://boyinthebands.com/archives/is-development-an-answer-for-city-churches/#comment-44864</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:49:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boyinthebands.com/archives/is-development-an-answer-for-city-churches/#comment-44864</guid>
		<description>Development as savior?  Development can also be the unholy temptor/temptress of urban churches.  I have lived in low income neighborhoods where churches (whose members live in other neighborhoods) have become slum-lords owning neighboring apartment buildings.  In a different kind of case, there were legal fights in Boston over the Swedenborgian Church On the Hill's cash-cow building (chapel on the first flower, upper levels containing high-price Beacon Hill rental units).  In Chicago I knew of a church that had a huge pot money from developing its former site, and a dysfunctional remnant oligarchy so hyper focused on their new-found endowment that they no longer do ministry.  The development of their property only worsened their pre-existing "devolution".

Urban churches looking to achieve financial stability throug the development of their real estate, should do so with great fear, trembling, and caution.  It is very easy to get "much more" than you ever bargained for.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Development as savior?  Development can also be the unholy temptor/temptress of urban churches.  I have lived in low income neighborhoods where churches (whose members live in other neighborhoods) have become slum-lords owning neighboring apartment buildings.  In a different kind of case, there were legal fights in Boston over the Swedenborgian Church On the Hill&#8217;s cash-cow building (chapel on the first flower, upper levels containing high-price Beacon Hill rental units).  In Chicago I knew of a church that had a huge pot money from developing its former site, and a dysfunctional remnant oligarchy so hyper focused on their new-found endowment that they no longer do ministry.  The development of their property only worsened their pre-existing &#8220;devolution&#8221;.</p>
<p>Urban churches looking to achieve financial stability throug the development of their real estate, should do so with great fear, trembling, and caution.  It is very easy to get &#8220;much more&#8221; than you ever bargained for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
